Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 76

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 76


Contents

Top-level "operations" categories, Mk. II

Getting back, for a moment, to the question of top-level operational categories: the previous discussion on this issue seemed to be tentatively favorable towards some renaming (or at least not categorically opposed to it), so we might as well continue.

The current setup is, broadly, thus:

The reasons for renaming, for anyone not wishing to read the previous discussion, are briefly summarized thus:

  1. "Military operations" as a category name causes problems when "military" is understood to refer only to ground forces, thus leading to the creation of non-standard names like Category:Land, sea and air operations of World War I in an attempt to correct this.
  2. It would be beneficial to free up the "operations" categories to be used for mid-level tactical and strategic operations within wars & campaigns, rather than having those names only for the top-level categories.

The two renaming schemes that I think would be most workable:

Scheme #1
  • Category:Actions of the armed forces
    • Category:Actions of the armed forces by war
      • Category:Actions of the armed forces in World War II
    • Category:Actions of the armed forces by country
      • Category:Actions of the armed forces of France
Scheme #2
  • Category:Operational military history
    • Category:Operational military history by war
      • Category:Operational military history of World War II
    • Category:Operational military history by country
      • Category:Operational military history of France

Scheme #2 has the advantage of tying in neatly with Category:Military history, making the overall placement more obvious; but the name may be a bit more esoteric. Having said that, these categories are really meant as holding bins—most editors aren't going to be adding articles directly to them—so that may not be a practical problem.

In either case, the "operations" terminology could then reappear further down the tree:

  • Category:Operational military history of World War I

(And yes, this does tie in to the overall category restructuring proposal, if anyone is curious; but that's not going to be ready for some time yet, while this is a manageable chunk that we ought to be able to handle in the near future.)

Comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I favor scheme #1, to avoid confusion with the "operational art" level of warfare. This is an inherently messy thing, since "tactics" covers the range from fire team or even individual, up to division-equivalent in the traditional sense. I say traditional, as I ran across a discussion today suggesting that units of the power of a Brigade Combat Team can be operational-level units, dictating where a battle of a campaign should be fought. Thinking about that farther, I can see that logic applying to the level of a US Marine Expeditionary Unit or Royal Marine Commando, at sea, given that with their air-sea-land capability, they can indeed dictate the location of battle. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To complicate this even further, where do actions by strategic-level special operations forces fit? Will that vary on whether they are door-kicking in direct action, or in a role of preparing the battlefield? Indeed, to take the latter, it's now my understanding that CIA paramilitary specialists prepared the local groups in Afghanistan to accept still strategic-level Special Forces detachments. As someone put it when considering the new forms of precision-guided air support, a squad-sized unit (which can be strategic special recon) now can throw 2000 pound hand grenades, if they can bring in a JDAM-carrying bomber in diect support. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm happier with the Scheme #2 also, but would like to think more about it. Why can't there be Category: Military history events of World War I?
Special Operations need their own category because they will never be even in the tactical part of the conventional warfare scope. It really defeats the purpose of being 'special' if the higher command needs two battalions of them :o) US Marine Expeditionary Unit or Royal Marine Commando will always be tactical forces, as is a Brigade Combat Team even if they are participating in an operational mission (by over-extension). It seems to me that few SO forces deploy more then a company on any operation, and the vast majority would be at below platoon commands. The operation to secure Eben-Emael took 74 paratroopers, and this was a 'hard' target.--mrg3105mrg3105 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as "Military history events" is concerned: aside from the ungrammatical nature of the name (that's a minor issue, but it should probably be either "military historical events" or "events in military history"), the substantial difference is that "events" covers a broader set of topics than either (a) military operations or even (b) purposeful actions by a military force. The signing of a military surrender would be an event but not an operation, for example; and, say, the passage of a law authorizing some military expenditure would be a military historical event even though it wasn't an action taken by the military.
Which is not to say that we couldn't do something like this, of course; but it would be a total re-scoping of the categories moreso than just a renaming, and would make their existence somewhat questionable to begin with (if there's no distinction made between actions of the military and other events, why not just merge everything up to the "military history of ..." level). Kirill 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
One alternative naming to consider for that, incidentally, would be a variation of Scheme #1 (let's call it Scheme #1a):
  • Category:Events involving the armed forces
    • Category:Events involving the armed forces by war
      • Category:Events involving the armed forces in World War II
    • Category:Events involving the armed forces by country
      • Category:Events involving the armed forces of France
This would imply the broader set of category scopes as well. Kirill 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, alternately, Scheme #1b, which retains a slightly more familiar wording, albeit at the cost of changing from parent to child category:
  • Category:Events in military history
    • Category:Events in military history by war
      • Category:Events in the military history of World War II
    • Category:Events in military history by country
      • Category:Events in the military history of France
Kirill 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that scheme 2 is more confusing because it implys you are talking about the actual working condition of the military at the time instead of the actual actions of the militay. I would like a reply on my thoughts please either on my page or here. I will try to watch this page.Historybuffc13 (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
On Scheme #1a):
  • Category:Events involving the armed forces
    • Category:Events involving the armed forces by war
      • Category:Events involving the armed forces in World War II
    • Category:Events involving the armed forces by country
      • Category:Events involving the armed forces of France
I'm still uncomfortable with use of 'armed forces' in its literal sense. Military history need not always record events by a country's 'armed' forces. For example the recently mentioned in HMAS Melbourne article dispatch of the Australian Navy warships to aid the city of Darwin after it was impacted by a cyclone did not involve armed forces literally, but was an event in the annals of RAN. Same occured more recently in the UK with floods,a nd in the USA with New Orleans to name a few (although in the later some troops were armed and even had to fire their weapons). This is particularly true of many UN missions and operations performed by troops of the contributing countries. Military seems to describe a more general use of troops.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. My understanding was that "armed forces", as a term, applied to military groups regardless of whether they were actually under arms at the time.
In any case, there's the opposing side arguing that "armed forces" is more general than "military"; so we're at something of an impasse. "Military history" seems generally uncontroversial, so it would be good to use that—provided we can come up with a practically feasible naming scheme using it. Kirill 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and just to add to this, an 'armed force' may not always be a military one, however I now realise my mistake; a 'military force' will always be armed (if only with side arms)! However media organisations refer to what used to be terrorists as 'militants' (whatever that means) although no self-respecting soldier would think of him or her self as a 'militant'. I therefore direct attention to the number of 'armies' here Category:National liberation movements. Generally they do not call themselves 'military' until their movement transitions into a sovereign state. I would therefore suggest that 'military' is adopted for all forces that engage in conventional warfare--mrg3105mrg3105 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"Conventional warfare" gets tricky here. Special operations forces are often considered a "strategic asset" even at the level of US combatant command SOCOM components. JSOC is arguably a bit higher in the food chain and definitely strategic. What really gets confusing is when, for example, CIA Special Activities Division (or whatever they are called at present) go into an area of operations (e.g., Afghanistan) to "prepare the battlefield" (or perhaps just pay the bribes) for the Special Forces detachments that follow. In these examples, everyone is armed, some are in uniform, some aren't, and some people not in uniform may be active duty military, although they fail the criteria for "lawful combatant" -- depending on which military lawyer you ask. One variant is that as long as there is some distinctive insignia visible before they start shooting, that's legal -- in the planned Iran Embassy hostage rescue, the actual rescue team wore black jeans and jackets, with American flags covered with tape on their shoulders. Supposedly, they were supposed to pull off the tape before beginning combat, which made them lawful. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; and that's only modern warfare, with formalized laws of war. Going back to, say, early medieval warfare, the conventional/unconventional distinction is mostly absent; a man with a sword is a man with a sword.
(But the theory is pretty tangential to the category naming issue, except insofar as using either "armed forces" or "military" here may be less desirable, for reasons of clarity, than using "military history" or some other less ambiguous term.) Kirill 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The other possibility that occurs to me, incidentally, would be to get rid of the "military events by country/war" levels entirely, and pull things up to the "military history" level across everything:
This would cause some clustering of miscellaneous "events" (i.e. those that couldn't be classified as a battle, campaign, etc.) in the military history categories; but the number of such articles would be minimal, and this would simplify the overall structure. Kirill 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In British Englsih, "military" applied strictly to matters relating to the army, it's more of an American usage to apply it accross the board of all services, although this usage does seem to be gaining ground somewhat. David Underdown (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always had problems with "operations", "campaigns" and "battles" as they tend to bleed into each other. Take, for example, the Battle of Kursk: it was a "battle", it was an "operation" (Citadel), and has been referred to by several sources as the "Kursk Campaign". Even wars and campaigns tend to merge somewhat, especially when viewed from the different combatants (i.e. the Continuation War was a full war to the Finns, whereas it was a campaign or theatre of the Soviet-German War for the Soviets).

IMO, I think we'd be better off going with something generic like "conflict" ("events" would also include things that are political in nature)

  • Military history
    • Military conflicts in history
      • Military conflicts by era
        • Military conflicts in World War II
          • Military conflicts in the Soviet-German War
            • Military conflicts in the Continuation War
              • Articles
      • Military conflicts by region
        • Military conflicts of Finland
          • Military conflicts in the Continuation War

Oberiko (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That would work fine so long as we were covering only conflicts; but what about non-conflict operations? There's plenty of articles about non-combat, and even non-wartime military operations; I can't see "conflicts" as an appropriate term to describe those. Kirill 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Conflicts that are non-wartime would be relatively straight-forward, simply going into a higher parent level "conflicts by the post-Cold War era" etc. without a qualifier like "Gulf War".
Are we including non-conflicts in this tree as well? If so I'd imagine that we'll end up with conflicts (as a sub-category of "events") in most cases regardless. Oberiko (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better, in that case, to move the non-conflict stuff up to the military history level and adopt the military conflict terminology for everything else (new categories in bold):
  • Military history by event
    • Military conflicts
      • Military conflicts by country
        • Military conflicts involving France
          • Battles involving France
      • Military conflicts by era
        • Military conflicts by war
          • Military conflicts of World War II
            • Battles of World War II
        • Military conflicts of the Medieval era
      • Military conflicts by scale
        • Wars
          • World War II
            • Military conflicts of World War II
        • Battles
          • Battles by country
            • Battles involving France
          • Battles by war
            • Battles of World War II
        • Campaigns
  • Military history by country
    • Military history of France
      • Military conflicts involving France
      • Non-conflict event articles
This would get the vast majority of the articles in question into a deeply-navigable matrix by country, war, and scale. Kirill 23:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I still question the use of scale, battle, campaign and, to some extent, even war as ambiguous. Hate to have WWII being the tail to wag the dog here, but I can foresee a considerable number of our articles being almost any combination of battle, campaign, theatre, operation and war (in a few extreme cases, potentially even all of them). The conventional logic of a war being made up of theatres and / or campaigns, and then those being made up of battles seems to break down once the scale of conflict reaches a certain point; various military historians categorizing the same events differently certainly doesn't help either.
It also seems a bit problematic to even have the qualifier of "conflict" or "event" on our category. If we've broken our war down by region then, recursively, down to lowest levels (ie. World War II --> European Theatre --> Western European Theatre --> Western European Campaign --> Operation Overlord --> Operation Neptune --> Omaha Beach) adding "conflicts of" to each of those levels is going to be pretty cumbersome, especially when most of the articles contained within are predominantly conflicts.
Though this may seem to be heretical, I would suggest that "Battles of" and "Military operations of" seem more situated to be a series of lists rather then categories. Oberiko (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that basing the entire category scheme on the specifics of WWII would definitely be the tail wagging the dog; we have tens of thousands of other articles for which the battle/campaign/war breakdown is perfectly sensible. Abandoning those categorization trees would simply result in all of these articles being placed in the corresponding "Military history of X" categories, rendering those unusable.
As a practical matter, there's no need to replicate a category scheme at every potential level. For example, if "Western European Campaign" is in "Campaigns of World War II", which is in "Military conflicts of World War II", there's no need for a "Military conflicts of the Western European Campaign" category, since the entire thing is already defined as a conflict through its parents. (Taking this to the extreme, we could simply say that, since "World War II" was already in "Wars", which are under "Military conflicts by scale", then there's no need to have any further "Military conflicts..." sub-categories below it. That might be a little too extreme—I think at least a single level of sub-categorization would be useful, as the main Category:World War II is huge—but there's certainly no need to create dozens of sub-categories for conflicts within conflicts within conflicts.)
This all becomes a bit simpler if we go for pure "Events" rather than "Conflicts" versus non-conflicts; "Events of the Western European Campaign" is a bit more natural a split (versus, e.g. people, locations, etc.). But I get the sense that's not something you want to do either. Kirill 03:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I would suspect that the same problem (if not to the same magnitude) would occur when dealing with other "epic" conflicts (Hundred Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, World War I, Cold War etc.). Though I tend to try and have things standardized where possible, you make a very valid argument in that the vast bulk of our article deal can be quite easily conventionally categorized.
I think what you suggest seems like the most reasonable comprimise, in that we can tag "Events of World War II" (which we'll have to anyway since there are so many categories and related topics) and then basically have it, for the most part, stop there. Oberiko (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So we could, perhaps, do something like this for the top levels:
Kirill 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement over the existing structure. I'm willing to give this a go. Oberiko (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this?

Category:Military history by area

Category:Military history by continent
Category:Military history by sub-continental region
Category:Military history by country
Category:Military history by local area
Category:Military history by location

Category:Military history by period

Category:Military history by Age (more then two Eras)
Category:Military history by Era (more then two centuries)
Category:Military history by Century
Category:Military history by decade
Category:Military history by year
Category:Military history by month
Category:Military history by day

Category:Military history by scale

Category:Military history by Theatre
Category:Military history by Campaign
Category:Military history by Operation
Category:Military history by battle

I appreciate that the Age and Era use may be a bit controversial--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's rather complicated, no? I can't imagine much use for categories by individual days, for example. Nor is the purely concentric nesting necessarily the best approach—particularly in terms of how unusual events are going to be categorized by scale; and countries may move over time, so they're not really a pure by-location categorization either. A very crude stab at making this workable:

Category:Military history by location

Category:Military history by continent
Category:Military history by region

Category:Military history by country

Category:Military history by era

Category:Military history by century
Category:Military history by decade
Category:Military history by year

Category:Military history by scale

Category:Military history by war
Category:Military history by theatre
Category:Military history by campaign
Category:Military history by operation
Category:Military history by battle
(But I think that this is still trying to make the scheme needlessly complex; your earlier idea of simply collecting events within a particular scale seems more practically useful, and more manageable from a navigation perspective.)
Fundamentally, though, you're correct in that we're breaking down history according to several very obvious branches:
  • Who? (by country)
  • Where? (by location)
  • When? (by era/year/etc.)
  • Part of what? (by event/scale/etc.)
I don't think trying to make everything a purely concentric tree is either feasible or necessary, though; it's often easier to conceptualize if some relationships aren't "is-a". Kirill 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Note, also, that we can simplify some of the naming above due to the fact that certain terms are implicitly military history; thus, "Battles" rather than "Military history by battle", and so forth. Kirill 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be solving another problem...

Strategic special operations could be another sub-category. One obvious category that doesn't fit neatly under geography, and even under theater, would be strategic deception. Under what was first Operation Bodyguard and then Operation Jael were sub-operations, by the London Controlling Staff, to make the Germans think the main invasion might take place anywhere from Norway to Southern France.

If this idea makes sense, then how would the more specific operations fit, such as FORTITUDE NORTH as the feint to Norway, and FORTITUDE SOUTH at the Pas de Calais? (I'm blanking on the name of the Southern French deception).

There are other things at the level of a theater, such as the OPERATION RANKIN plans for the occupation of Germany, or black radio propagander such as Soldatensender Calais. The technical intelligence units, such as Alsos, following behind the combat troops are yet another type of operation.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There would already be some additional sub-categories of Category:Military history by event that aren't mentioned here (e.g. Category:Peacekeeping operations, Category:Non-combat military operations, and so forth); and we could add additional ones as necessary to cover other types of events that don't fall into the more traditional battle/campaign/war ones. Kirill 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

an(other) alternative

Sorry for being rather low in my activity, and so having little merit in partecipating to this talk, but, if I have understand the issue, there's worries that layman can understand Military as land warfare; I suggest this type of breakdown of subcategories, once on the "by war" level:

  • army operations in $WAR
    • campaigns in $WAR
      • battles in $CAMPAIGN
  • Navy operations in $WAR
    • Naval campaigns in $WAR
      • Naval battles in $NAVAL_CAMPAIGN
  • air operations in $WAR
    • air campaign in $WAR
      • air battles in $AIR_CAMPAIGN

And so on. Of course, is possible to put land & sea in lieu of army and Navy/Naval; but i don't recommend this because that is in my opinion an excessive dumbing-down of the categorizations. Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaignbox list

This has been (briefly) discussed before, and there were no objections, but I suppose it can't hurt checking again: if there are no objections, I plan to deprecate the poorly-maintained and time-consuming manual list of campaignboxes in favor of an automatically-generated category (Category:Campaignboxes). Does anyone see any issues with that? Kirill 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between main Manual of Style and subsidiary guidelines

In case anyone is particularly interested, there's a (lengthy) discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Project guidelines that involves, among other things, our style guide. Personally, I doubt most people here will be interested in wading through it—particularly since, as far as I can tell, nothing earth-shattering is being proposed—but please do feel free to drop by that page if you're so inclined. Kirill 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion there is better titled "Reinventing the Wheel". When I was a uni student I soon realised that every faculty and department library held a different approved style manual. My attempt at multi-disciplinary writing was sabotaged by the inability of multiple disciplines to agree on style, even within one academic institution. Ultimately the subject-matter does influence and to a significant degree define the style authors adopt. The Wikipedia MoS as a whole has to be a very general one, maybe based on something journalists use since they tend to cover all subject matter. Beyond that, its every project for itself :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that's actually what they're trying to avoid. Us using the MilHist MOS instead of the "generic" one. If I can tell correctly, it would appear that the solution's going to be that all other MOS's have to be subordinate to the primary MOS. In other words, articles for us would have to satisfy both the original MOS and the MilHist MOS; the correct solution IMO. Oberiko (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll believe it when I see it :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as we take care not to violate the MoS too much, we can keep to our MILHIST MOS. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see there's any conflict between MOS and MILMOS, and providing any future amendments to MILMOS comply with MOS, it's a non-issue for us.--ROGER DAVIES talk 13:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I’m not sure that Mrg3105 doesn’t have the right of it. Have you been reading any of the posts there like this one? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the big difference between the set-up on Wikipedia and the campus example is that as individual editors we can all contribute equally in both forums and thus directly influence (and change) what is in both MOS and MILMOS. So, in an case of conflict, we can amend MOS to incorporate the specific MILHIST exception. To use the ships' names example, it would be strange to amend MOS to say that all prefix+name combinations should be roman/italic (for example in "Mr Smith") but perfectly reasonable to say it applies specifically to ships (for example "HMS Victory") and perhaps spacecraft. In my experience (and I have been involved with a few MOS amendments), incorporating exceptions - as long as they're not too convoluted or longwinded - is not a problem. I think what those active at MOS are concerned about is a small group of say two or thee editors producing their version of a FOOMOS that bears little resemblance to the main MOS and is based on shaky principles. My view is that SandyGeorgia has it right when she says there should be a central forum for discussion, which coordinates FOOMOS and MOS to ensure they're both reflecting the same principles. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's scary as heck. Seriously. Cromdog (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John S. McCain, Sr.‎

Now that it appears that John McCain is likely to be a primary candidate for President of the United States, the John S. McCain, Sr.‎ article, which is about his grandfather, is likely to be viewed a lot more often in the future. Thus, please consider putting that article on your watchlist to help revert vandalism, and if you think the article could be improved, please consider assisting. Thanks, Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add John S. McCain, Jr. to this also. Like John McCain, Sr. his bio is primarily about his military career. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't just ban IP and new editors from editing like in WWII? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is IP and new editor vandalism a problem yet? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it'll be utterly intolerable on the John McCain article itself, but I doubt the others will see that much of it, at least for the time being. Kirill 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

National militaries task force?

Out of interest, is there any interest in establishing a national militaries task force? Despite the easy availability of high quality information on national armed forces and their individual branches (eg, the national army, navy and air force) many of these articles are short at best or a mess at worst. This project would duplicate the work of the various regional military history task forces, but it could be a useful way to prompt an improvement drive. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean a task force rather than a WikiProject? Kirill 02:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes - whoops. I've just edited my post for correct that. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me Nick, took me a second to realise you meant one to deal with all the national militaries rather than one for each nation (Did I get that right?). Would be nice to at least have basic information on all the militaries in the world that was peer checked etc, considering it is annother of those things wikipedia gets used for. Narson (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm interested in whether there's enough editors who are interested in a task force which covers all the national militaries. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be in; I've been working on-again, off-again, on places like Uganda and Kyrgyzstan so it'd be nice to get a bit more focus on this. From my perspective, it would be best to focus on current, and obscure, countries first - there's masses of info everywhere on the US and Britain etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
An obvious question regarding potential scope here: would this be limited to current countries, or would it include former countries as well? (And, if it included service branches, would it include branches no longer in existence?) Going with the former option would result in a smaller set of articles, but would exclude some of the more prominent ones (e.g. Wehrmacht, Red Army, etc.) that might be of interest from a structural perspective. Kirill 03:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the task force be limited to current countries as former militaries better sit with the relevant regional military history task forces. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you familiar with The Military Balance from the International Institute for Strategic Studies? If so, is that somewhat like what you have in mind, in public form? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that all the national military articles should contain information equivalent to The Military Balance as a minimum. There are lots of easily available international gazettes of military data which can be drawn on (eg, the various Jane's publications, the SIPRI yearbook, the CIA World Fact Book, various international think tanks, etc) and which provide the basis for authoritative articles on even the most obscure militaries. --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like something I'd want to participate in. Although my wikitime has become very rationed, I'd decided at the end of last year to build on my efforts fixing up and filling out the List of air forces to try to focus on improving the air force articles on the lesser-known air forces. I recently finished the Armenian Air Force, and had proposed an article structure that received general support on the Military aviation task force talk page (which can be found in the archive). This format might be adaptable to the other services. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggested a list of 10 key starter air forces during that discussion; I suggested we come up with a short list of 5 or 10 initial national militaries to work on as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So, any objections to setting this up? If not, we can go ahead and do that in the near future. Kirill 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I like it. As far as the militaries involved, I'd definitely start with countries that do not have the latest and greatest technology, so we don't get mired in things such as Raptor vs. Typhoon. I'd also pick a set that are widely geographically distributed, so there's no OR pressure for things such as the literal military balances done by regions. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that proposed focus. It would also be good if an outcome of the task force was the development of recomended structures for articles on national militaries - there are a few good examples floating about at the moment and I think that it would help editors if there was a 'best practice' format (or formats) to use when developing articles. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we could consider using/adopting Askari Mark's air force template. Let me throw out some ideas for a first list: Nigeria, Brazil, Indonesia, and maybe Afghanistan or Iran(?) Buckshot06 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Bolivian navy should be interesting at least :) Narson (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It needs a bit of work, but it's going along... Bolivian Naval ForceBuckshot06 (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Well, count me in if this gets off the ground. The only thing I can see is that if we can't get more than a stub on some militaries, people will merge them in to the main 'Military of Blah' article (For example the 'Swiss Navy' of lake patrol boats only exists within the Military of Switzerland article) Narson (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we expand the initial 'Military of Loamshire' article first, and only when it starts hitting the size restrictions think about budding article for the Loamshire Navy, Loamshire Air Force, etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/National militaries task force. Enjoy! :-) Kirill 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. I've started a discussion of the task force's initial priorities at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/National militaries task force. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Messines now open

The peer review for Battle of Messines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army

There is a very heated discussion at Ukrainian Insurgent Army, regarding whether the article is unbalanced or not. Input, and review from real historians would certainly help. Bobanni (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the ArbCom is rejecting this case. Is there anyone interested in helping out like mediating or helping at editing? Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can offer to check their sources as far as possible since I have a access to a state and a university library. They need to pinpoint the facts I look up. Hopefully, this way we can get a core of the article that is based on accepted scholar's opinion and even point out possibly controversial issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD which might be of interest

The article on the Urus-Martan ambush, which was a small battle in Chechnya in 2004 is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urus-Martan ambush. While there are reliable sources which cover the battle, the battle itself was a small affair and doesn't seem to have been a significant incident in the long-running war in Chechnya. As such, the issue seems to be whether the existance of reliable sources alone is enough to justify an article on a small battle. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a sort of proposal for a new task force that I would like some feedback on. It is sort-of like the Weaponry task force, but also sort of different. I would like to propose a Prototype task force. There are a lot of things that never became used but were still created, like the Heuschrecke 10 for example. ~ Dreamy § 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you proved other article examples that may benifit from this proposed task force? From where I sit on the matter the weaponry task force could probably manage articles of this nature without additional help. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you're talking about many one-off or one-time items. Pilot TV programs that never made it to air, items that had only one item made (like your example), single item series of vehicles. Problem is, do you also include models, prototype items such as an aircraft that was the flying design before it entered service with changes? Are you only talking about items that have only one model of a series made? Leobold1 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be covered under the weaponry task force. Most prototypes aren't drastically new, they're usually a model of something (tank, rifle, plane etc.) that never got into mainstream production. Even the far out things (like the Nazi's "Sonnengewehr" project) would typically fall into their categories. Also, keep in mind that most things that do enter production were at one time prototypes and evolved beyond it; seems like a messy split.Oberiko (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Technically there was the SdKfz 6, Rhino Heavy Armoured Car, AMC 34, Char 2C, Type 5 Ke-Ho, Type 4 Chi-To, Type 5 Chi-Ri, Type 95 Heavy Tank, Type 5 To-Ku, Schofield tank, 10TP, Tortoise heavy assault tank, and probably more, just for weapons. The taskforce should also encompass other things, like medals and the like. ~ Dreamy § 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator election

This is perhaps of tangential interest for most people, but:

I have decided not to stand for re-election as Lead Coordinator. I encourage anyone with an interest in coordination work to nominate themselves in the next few days. Kirill 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well this is a shock! I didn't scare you off did I?:) I hope that in the, now somewhat less, unlikely event I do win I can count on your support?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a shame Kirill. I hope you'll reconsider before the deadline and keep your hat in the ring. Narson (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that Kirill, you're leaving some pretty massive shoes to fill. Hopefully you'll still be involved with the project though. Oberiko (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have no intentions of disappearing entirely, and I'll be happy to help the new coordinators with anything they need. I'm quite burned out at this point, though; I've been herding cats—and ever-increasing numbers of cats, at that!—for more than two years now, and I need a long vacation from that. Kirill 15:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I be someone else to wholeheartedly thank you for all that you have done for the Milhist project. It would not be what it is today without you. Woody (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Second that Kirill - indeed, thankyou very much for all you've done for the project, and indeed, please stick around in some capacity. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wooow, that's quite shocking, as I curently can't see anybody capable of filling the empty space which would be left by you. Somebody once said:"without you, we would all be running around in circles demanding to know who's drivin' this flat umbrella". I strongly hope that you'll reconsider! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't count the times I wondered aloud to myself how it is that you find the energy and the free time to do as much as you do. This has become one of the largest, and surely among the best organized and most active, WikiProjects under your tutelage. It's like the end of an era ^_^ LordAmeth (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kirill, any chance you could draft up an essay of informal advice / guidelines for anyone who steps up to take the Lead Coordinator position? Oberiko (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As you wish. :-) Kirill 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you mention on there too when you were lead coordinator? The folks here are familiar with you but new members to the project may not recognize you since you're stepping aside. BrokenSphereMsg me 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done. Kirill 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering how you'd be able to continue to process workload under the circumstances. I applaud you for your decision. Bravo! You'll always be Lead Coordinator Emeritas. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I just like to take this oppurtunity to congratulate Kirill on his brilliant terms as Lead Coordinator as well to thank him for all the help and advice he given not only me but the rest of the project. Hail Kirill. Kyriakos (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your great work Kirill. Your leadership of this project has played a key role in its success and you leave some huge boots to fill. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind words! :-) Kirill 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a great loss to the project, Kirill. I've enjoyed enormously working with you and will greatly miss your counsel. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I've said, I have no intention of disappearing; anyone that still wants my counsel will have no trouble getting it. ;-) Kirill 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This comes as quite a shock to me. For the first time the traditional "six star" image I give to the Lead Coordinator will not go to Kirill. For all are sakes I hope that this will not be the end of the world as we know it. In any event, it has been an honor to serve as an assistant under you guidance. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully there won't be any world-ending incidents. There's certainly no shortage of suitable candidates to replace me; I'm confident that the project will be in good hands. Kirill 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to all your extraordinary efforts dedicated to this project, i salute you! Your work here has to become a model and a standard that all WikiProjects would be proud of. Much appreciated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I am splitting the large military salutes section from [Salute] to get a new article. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Units with multiple names

Howdy folks. How are multiple names for a unit usually handled in the {{Infobox Military Unit}}? I just did a little work on the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, which like many units of the Continental Army went through several official name changes during its relatively brief existence (this one had a couple more than usual). I simply put all the official names in the top header of the infobox. Is there some other standard approach? —Kevin Myers 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like the neatest approach. Kirill 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just a few short notices to anyone who cares:

  1. I again went through the unassessed articles, dealing with somewhere around 2K articles. (On that note, a thank you to whomever marked the disambiguation ship pages I was dreading)
  2. On that note, someone who knows what to do should take a look at the pages Wikipedia: War of 1812 Campaigns and Wikipedia: Template messages/WikiProject notices as they should be nonarticle pages, but the NA is not registering there.
  3. My next big undertaking is to attempt to go through all the pages missing B-class remarks and evaluate all the bazillion pages therein.
  4. Concerning lists, the assessment page says they progress along the same scale as articles toward the featured list status, but I am not sure if there are any...benchmarks lists should meet to reach B-class the way we prefer regular articles do. Any input, or a point to such marks, would be appreciated.
Cromdog (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome about the ship disambig pages. I did about 500 of them over three days. -MBK004 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Fixed now; the banner wasn't allowing for project-space pages. The first of these could probably be deleted anyways; it doesn't seem to be used anywhere.
4. I think the existing B-Class criteria can apply to lists without any substantial modification; there's no requirement in them for prose text.
Thanks for all your hard work! Kirill 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: articles that have sections falling within our scope, even though the article itself does not technically fall within that scope (eg. a town in England, not within our scope, but has a section on the local castle that does not have its own article as of yet). Do we tag the article (I have been...) and if so, do we stick to that section or take on the whole article anyway? Cromdog (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no way of tagging a particular section; so the tagging would need to be done at the article level, in practical terms. Kirill 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I hadn't made that last part clear...I didn't mean do we tag just that section, but do we, as the project, edit the whole article, or generally stick to the section pertaining to our project? For another example, I ran across an article about an island off of France, that just happens to have a section on the submarine base located on that island. It seems reasonable that it could hold is own article, eventually, but if it couldn't, should we also work to improve the article's sections on, say, geography, people, or whatever, that some people in our project may not be used to or comfortable with editing? Is that clearer? Cromdog (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the involved editors are free, and likely, to do that on personal title anyway. Theefore I do not see that it should be a task for the 'project'; but we would be happy if our members would also contribute to the rest of the article. Does that sound ok? Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither option is a problem for me, I just wondered how that would be approached from the aspect of the project in handling those types of articles.Cromdog (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Enigma machine

I tagged this for WPMILHIST and I believe there are no objections that ENIGMA is part of military history. I already rated is as class B (it is a very good article) pending evaluation of a higher class. Sv1xv (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for tagging the article for milhist. As this article has undergone an FAC and passed, it is rated as FA class automatically. I have amended the tag accordingly. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I also added the Intel and Science task forces tags to the milhist banner. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Are you sure it fits the Military Science scope?

This task force covers topics related to military science, including strategy, tactics, doctrines, and military theory in general. (Please note that this is not the same thing as the role of science in the military, which is generally covered by the Military technology and engineering task force.)

Sv1xv (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Enigma impacted Allied Strategy and Tactics, so I would say it fails within the sciences task force. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems that I rushed a bit, i'm going to remove it in a second. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also modified the WPMILHIST boxes for the following two related articles:

adding "Intel-task-force=yes" tags. Sv1xv (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It also works if you type only "Intel=yes". --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultra

The current article on Ultra is more about Enigma cryptanalysis and less about intelligence dissemination. Instead of just deleting stuff, I decided to start a section with details of Ultra dissemination, based on G. Pidgeon's book. I would like to consult again Winterbotham but I have misplaced my copy so it will be some time before I finish editing.

Sv1xv (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


I did some major rearrangement of Ultra today. I grouped together all stuff related to cryptanalysis, pending deletion or copying to Cryptanalysis of the Enigma. Sv1xv (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Magic/Purple

A related article about MAGIC intelligence derived from Japanese PURPLE and other ciphers is Magic (cryptography). It need extensive clean-up and copy editing. I just added a few book references. Sv1xv (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ID these aircraft?

? #1
? #1
? #2
? #2

Both were on static display at the Wings Over Wine Country air show last year. The one on the right is being wheeled onto the runway as the air show has concluded. I'll post this at WP:Aircraft as well if necessary. Thanks. --BrokenSphereMsg me 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The one on the left appears to be a North American Harvard trainer.
And the other one appears to be an early (judging by the "T-tail") two-seat training variant of the Hawker Hunter. Grant 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not the hawk, whose tail is halfway on the stabilizer. I think its the Aero L-29 Delfín. T/@Sniperz11editssign 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's an L-29, but its canopy has been modified. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

hi! the aircraft on the left is definitely a T-6 Harvard. i once had to prepare one for road shipment from a very cold airfield in norway. to identify the air force colors would be more difficult, but it may be 1 of the 70, or so, which were sold off as surplus by the south africa air force about 15 years ago. most were bought in the u.s. are still operational and very good condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Condell (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 now open

The A-Class review for Heuschrecke 10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming of articles in English Wikipedia

There is an ongoing process by various editors to change the spelling of place names in article titles to non-English spelling, including use of non-English fonts. This does nothing other then initiate edit wars and title disputes since it does not inform the reader, and still required inclusion of the English name of the place/event in the article so the English speaker can find it.

While this is definitely against the letter and spirit of the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (national and European Union policies are often sighted), the lengthy discussions that have taken place on various talk pages lead nowhere, and the nationalisation (dare I say "Balkanisation") of articles continues despite all reasonable arguments and citation of various Wikipedia policies. The administrative support is IMHO generally lacking, bureaucratic and eventually ineffective.

I would like to request that the MilHist project participants decide once and for all how the articles are to be named:

  • by their common English names, spelled in English (even where they are not common), as used in the historical period covered by the article

or

  • in the language currently used in the area, using the appropriate national font.

Once decided, this decision needs to be included as an explicit policy in the project, and not a guideline in the Style Guide.

Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is properly a matter for WP:NAMCON, I think, rather than for the project; it reaches far beyond our scope to the general Wikipedia-wide naming conventions. Certainly, anything we develop would need to eventually go into the main policy anyways; so there's little point in not bringing the full weight of the central forum to bear from the outset. Kirill 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no point. The more people are involved the less chance there less chance there is of a decision being reached. Having looked at similar "discussions" the decisions were not reached for a year, and some resulted in no consensus. Pointing out that there are existing Wikipedia-wide is also fruitless. In any case, what "central forum" would that be? To me Wikipedia bureaucracy seems labyrinthine, and I have too little time as it is to engage in it. However, if this is what you would like to do, please go ahead by all means. I'll be happy with consensus in this forum. Hopefully enough people will care about the issue to express themselves on the subject.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is that WikiProjects do not have the authority to override central policies by their local consensus. What you're trying to do is change WP:NAMCON#Use English words; the matter needs to be discussed there rather than here if you want the end result to be binding on anyone. Kirill 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is User:mrg3105 advocating a change to WP:NAMCON#Use English words or the enforcement of it? I've noticed that this is a difficult policy to enforce. For example, the article on Casimir Pulaski is titled under his Polish name, Kazimierz Pułaski, rather than his name in English, as policy would suggest. A move to the English title was proposed in the past but blocked, apparently by Polish editors. Nationalism seems to trump policy on these matters. I think the "Use English" policy is dying a slow death, which means the "English Wikipedia" is transforming into the "International Wikipedia", for better or worse. But, as Kirill says, this is a discussion for another place. —Kevin Myers 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I agree that WP:UE and such is dying a slow hideous death by 1000 cuts, however Kiril is right, discussing it here won't have any effect on that, it will merely establish consensus within one project. If Mrg wants to propose a new part of the policy around English to address a specific abuse and it is workable? Heck, I'm happy to vote for him, but this is not really the place yeah. Though, there are certain very specific cases that perhaps MilHist should look at if they are currently outside the guidelines etc. Narson (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Participating editors may be interested in the concluding outcome of the Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive discussion--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Can I bug someone with better sp&g skills to read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Advice to new coordinators and make sure that everything is spelled correctly and the proper grammar is used in the article? Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Had a go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rorke's Drift

A user has twice amended the result field for Rorke's Drift to read "Heroic British victory", which to me seems somewhat unnecessary, and verging on POV. I've reverted (also twice), but don't really want to get into a major edit war over it. Any other views? David Underdown (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. Heroic isn't vocabulary to be used to describe the outcome of a battle. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Iraq War troop surge of 2007 -- for a topic of its importance, the article has serious problems. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you define as its serious problem? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is what the assessment also implies a good start; meaning it is not yet finished or can be considered a very good article. So yes some improvement is wanted. But considering many other important articles there seems to be nothing exceptionally serious here. Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The factoid that the "Pro-'surge' group is almost all Jewish" has been added and re-added to the article. I personally believe that it's, at best, completely irrevlent, and, at worst, anti-Semitic when taken out of context, but I know that registered users disagree with me. What do you think? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Barton S. Alexander

On the article for Barton S. Alexander I added a tag for bad citations and added the following to the talk page:

During a check for information on another article, there were citations that had nothing to do with the article. Mainly, these consisted of the citations linking to OR from references 17-23 (minus reference 18). In addition, references 22 and 23 refer to a chapter of the OR that doesn't exist (Chapter 66, OR only goes to chapter 65). http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse.monographs/waro.html

Leobold1 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard Missile

Somebody has split Standard Missile without any discussion. He has misnamed the resultant pages, and when I pointed this out to them, he claimed that his version was correct. I have provided evidence to the contrary, including a reference to what the manufacturer calls it, and now he is avoiding the discussion. I would appreciate some outside input on this, incase it is just me, but I am sure that the name is incorrect. The issue is being discussed at Talk:RIM-161 Standard missile 3 (Which should be Talk:RIM-161 Standard Missile 3) --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Villers-Bocage now open

The peer review for Battle of Villers-Bocage is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Carlson's patrol now open

The A-Class review for Carlson's patrol is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear and Nimitz

That is sourced (Spiegel in German) but that seems not possible ! Could somebody check ?

On the morning of February 9, 2008 controversy was caused when two Russian bombers of the type TU-95 flew directly above USS Nimitz in the Western Pacific. According to the US Department of Defense, one of the two aircraft was said to have flown above the Nimitz at an altitude of 2,000 feet. As a reaction, four F-18 were launched when the bombers were 500 miles away from the U.S. ships, and intercepted the bombers 50 miles south of the Nimitz. Two F/A-18s trailed one bomber, which buzzed the deck of the Nimitz twice, while the other two F/A-18s trailed another TU-95 circling about 50 miles away from the Nimitz. The fighters then proceeded to guide the Russians away from USS Nimitz. Reportedly, there was no radio communication between the American and Russian aircrafts.[1]

Ceedjee (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the German article. I couldn't find an English counterpart. The translation of events seems correct as far as I reckon and this isn't the first time that Russian aircrafts sneak inside a battlegroup and fly over the carrier. It must be funny for the Russians since they keep doing it.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It is worth remembering that a Bear can carry antiship missiles, such as the Kh-55, with range estimated as at least 2,500 km (1,550 miles). The only reasons a Bear would come that close are psychological, or perhaps photography. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there no source about this in the US or english press ? 81.244.165.235 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
English sources:
American forces press service (about Nimitz and Bears)
Milcom Monitoring Post (about Nimitz and Bears)
politicalgateway (violation of Japanese airspace on the same day)
globalsecurity.org (about Nimitz and Bears)
Hope that helps. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
US Sources: FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, ABC News That's the US mainstream sites, most link to an AP story. Leobold1 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question, but...

Are peer reviews only for long-time registered users, or can anyone make comments? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any constructive criticism and helpful comments are welcome. -MBK004 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Marion now open

The peer review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Weaponolgy - military channel (discovery show)

can someone make an article on the weaponology series on military channel (discovery owned).

I enjoy seeing articles like Human Weapon and Fight Quest which both give a quick overview and episode list. Thanks Tkjazzer (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is not the correct workgroup, please let me know which workgroup would be correct. Tkjazzer (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The best solution is always the do-it-yourself approach. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time. Maybe someone who isn't as busy would be interested. Tkjazzer (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I glanced at its quiz, and was unimpressed -- there was very little about understanding, and more about trivia. Some of the questions were based on misinformation, such as assuming a first-generation night sight using an infrared illuminator has the same properties as a third-generation thermal viewer. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, its pretty shitty stub lol. Yea i went to get more info but got sitracked in there dam forums. Its defintly a horrible show that poorly fact checked. Well hell the whole channel is bassicly proganda. But have fun. BonesBrigade 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for World War II now open

The peer review for World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

'Land Force Northern Area'

From my references, I do not believe this Canadian Forces Land Force Command so-called formation actually exists, and I believe it needs to be deleted or merged. Does anyone have any evidence that LFNA actually exists? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)